BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
The article analyzes one of the main categories of comparative jurisprudence — “comparative law”. The alternative to the general legal theoretical science approach to consider comparative law as the doctrinal part of comparative law has been offered. The article analyzes Western and Russian approaches to the definition of the terms “comparative law” and “comparative jurisprudence”. The term “comparative law” is analyzed from the point of general legal methodology. The concept “comparative jurisprudence” has a broader content and together with methodological part of comparative legal science includes the components of both scientific and educational character. The author pays attention to the absence of normative content in the understanding of the term “comparative law” indicating exceptionally doctrinal legal nature of this phenomenon. The inner structure of comparative law depends on the system of formation and interaction of the objects of comparative jurisprudence. It is mentioned that this approach does not contradict in principle to the true opinion concerning the division of the whole comparative jurisprudence into general and special parts. The author emphasizes the necessity of the complex use of the terms “comparative law” and “comparative jurisprudence”. The necessity of formation of new category of comparative legal science – the “universal theory of law”, which has a supranational character has been proved. The scientific and educational approaches for distinguishing the concepts “comparative law” and “comparative jurisprudence” have been analyzed.
comparative law, comparative jurisprudence, legal comparativistics, universal theory of law, doctrine, objects of comparative law.
1. Craig R., de Búrca G. The evolution of EU law. 2nd ed. Oxford, 2011.
2. Cruz P. A Modern Approach to Comparative Law. Boston, 1993.
3. Formation of Contracts: A Study of the Common Core of Legal Systems / ed. R. Schlesinger. N. Y., 1968. Vol. 1—2.
4. Gutteridge H. C. Comparative Law. An Introduction to the Comparative Method of Legal Study and Research. Cambridge, 1946.
5. Hall J. Comparative Law and Social Theory. Baton Rouge, 1963.
6. Lambert E. La function du droit civil compare. P., 1903.
7. Pound R. Comparative Law in Space and Time // The American Journal of Comparative Law. 1995. Vol. 4.
8. Procés-Verbaux des séances: et documents Congres international de droit compare, P., 31 juillet — 4 août 1900 an. Société de 9. Législation compare (secrétaire gen. F. Dagun). P., 1905.
9. Rabel E. Aufgabe und Notwendichkeit der Rechtsvergleichung. München, 1925.
10. Radbruch G. Űber die methode der Rechtsvergleichung // Monatschrift fűr Kriminalpsychologie und Strafrechtsreform. Berlin, 1906.
11. Soldatos R. Les fondamentaux de l’architecture constitutionnelle de l’Union européenne: Essai éclectique d’analyse critique. Brussels, 2010.
12. Bahin S. V. Pravo integracionnyh obrazovaniy: voprosy konkurencii sistem prava // Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i pravo: vzglyad v XXI vek: materialy konferencii v chest' prof. L. N. Galenskoy. SPb., 2009.
13. Grafskiy V. G. Vseobschaya istoriya prava i gosudarstva. M., 2007.
14. Egorov A. V. Sravnitel'noe pravovedenie v sisteme yuridicheskogo obrazovaniya Belarusi: tradicii, tendencii, problemy // Lex Russica. 2016. № 7.
15. Integracionnoe pravo v sovremennom mire: sravnitel'no-pravovoe issledovanie / pod red. S. Yu. Kashkina. M., 2014.
16. Saidov A. H. Sravnitel'noe pravovedenie (osnovnye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti): uchebnik. M., 2009.
17. Tihomirov Yu. A. Kurs sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya. M., 1996.
18. Cvaygert K., Ketc H. Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava. T. 1: Osnovy. M., 1995.
